But it makes sense. Back when California was preparing to become a state, the land was sparcely populated and mostly by itinerant miners and other “undesirables.” To start towns you needed people to build churches, schools, mayoral residences. You can only do this with an increasing population and a stable system of acquiring and distributing wealth. Ergo, the marriage code.

And you wouldn’t be interested in unions that did not produce children. Older couples were allowed to marry back then because they may have had the time to accrue lots of wealth and you had to make that wealth grow in the new state. Gay people did not have the clout to push for equal treatment back then. If they did, we may have had the civil unions from the very start and this whole issue would have never existed.

And it doesn’t have to make the lawyers rich – just like with renting, you’d be able to buy standard forms at Kinkos. You register your contract with the govt. and you get whatever benefits come standard. For your social status, you have your church/temple marriage or commitment ceremony. But they’re not legally binding.

I remember hearing that govt. grants benefits to married people because it was trying to incentivize child bearing. Nowadays fewer married couples are having kids, esp. the smart and educated (present company excluded). And the dumb ones don’t see marriage as a requirement for making babies. Just watch the hilarious but insightful Idiocracy.

If for some reason we still want to incentivize child bearing, let’s do it directly. Oh, wait, we already do that through the tax code and welfare programs. So remind me again, why does the govt. feel the need to control marriage?

I think a lot of what you say is true; people make their decisions at the booth, under extreme time pressure, by remembering the commercial that they saw last week. The high-speed train commercial talked about creating jobs. Lots and lots of jobs. But it only took me a microsecond to realize that these jobs are paid by MY money. And as you say, they are stupid jobs, creating a railway line that nobody wants. Vegas would have been a much better destination choice. Better yet, create a workforce of rickshaw drivers that takes you places. This would have created thousands more jobs, and at lower wage levels. Everybody gets a job !!

Maybe Californians ARE stupid. Which would make the passage of Prop.8 stupid as well. Oh wait, I voted to support that one. Sorry about that, everyone; it’s not that I hate your gender choice. I don’t. It’s just that the state of California should never have gotten into the marriage business, hetero or homosexual version. I vote for all civil marriages to be *upgraded* to civil unions. Only those married in a church (or mail-order-church) can claim marriage. And may God smite you if you ever get divorced.

Come to think of it… fake churches and ministers would create jobs. Lots and lots of jobs.